Bsix Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Fox has apparently rejected a TV ad for the Superbowl because of its indirect religious message. It seems that we have reached the point that the expression of religion is being forced to the back of the bus...or not even being allowed on the bus at all.Adertisers can hawk all sorts of things on the Superbowl -- skimpy-dressed women, beer, horror movies, fattening foods...you name it. But a message that encourgages abstractly encourages viewers to read a benign passage of the Bible is banned.I think this action by Fox is symptomatic of how religion is being treated in our society today.Six
Analytics Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Fox has apparently rejected a TV ad for the Superbowl because of its indirect religious message....Here is a news link:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/03/2011-02-03_top_banned_super_bowl_commercials_jesus_hates_obama_go_daddy_peta_bud_light_and_.htmlLot's of things are banned, including an ad promoting vegetarianism, Snickers, and Bud Light. You might be less disapproving of a United Church of Christ ad being banned for welcoming gays to their church. Another ad was banned for a same-sex dating service. They even banned a godaddy.com ad for having "homosexual overtones."I
Bsix Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 Lot's of things are banned, including an ad promoting vegetarianism, Snickers, and Bud Light. You might be less disapproving of a United Church of Christ ad being banned for welcoming gays to their church. Another ad was banned for a same-sex dating service. They even banned a godaddy.com ad for having "homosexual overtones."True. A lot of ads have been banned. Almost all of them designed to push the envelope and to be deliberately controversial.The PETA ad for vegetarianism was designed to get banned with is overt sexuality and suggestion of veggies as sexual objects.Snickers got banned for two men ending up in a mimmicked homosexual kiss.Bud Light got banned for endless farting humor.I'm not trying to defend or condemn those bannings. As for skimpy-dressed women...perhaps you have forgotten the Go Daddy or Victoria's Secret commercials.My point is simply this.The John 3:16 ad is about as benign as an ad can be...and it got banned. The reason that it got banned is that it alluded to religion. The meer allusion to religion is so offensive that it cannot be aired for the public on TV. I think that is a reflection of where our society is headed.Six
Analytics Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 True. A lot of ads have been banned. ...My point is simply this.The John 3:16 ad is about as benign as an ad can be...and it got banned. The reason that it got banned is that it alluded to religion. The meer allusion to religion is so offensive that it cannot be aired for the public on TV. I think that is a reflection of where our society is headed.SixA company made a decision delimitating what ads would and would not be appropriate for a particular television show. In this venue, they decided no fart jokes, no guys accidently kissing, no stimulation with vegetables, no advertising gays being welcome at church, and no advertising religion. When looking in aggregate, where does that mean society is headed?As long as the government-issued coins in your pocket continue to endorse faith in God, I don
Bsix Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 When looking in aggregate, where does that mean society is headed?Excellent question. I do think that in aggregate, what plays...does not...or isn't even submitted for play...on America's Super Bowl is an indicator of where America is going.Networks like Fox are attempting mind-read what is on the correct side of what is socially acceptable...or taboo in America. The 3:16 ad does not seem to be deliberately controversial. It doesn't seek to overtly push a belief or doctrine. It doesn't seem to stigmatize anyone (unlike the the United Church of Christ commercial). It doesn't seem to attempt tap into social taboos such as homosexuality, body functions, sensuality...etc. The message of the commercial is about as benign as you can get. The fact this ad got banned suggests a new taboo in America.Six
frankenstein Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The message of the commercial is about as benign as you can get. The fact this ad got banned suggests a new taboo in America.Sixthat seems a big leap. that the add was not accepted does not really show anything other than it was not accepted. In a prepared statement, Fox said: 'As a matter of company policy, Fox Broadcasting Company does not accept advertising from religious organisations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices.'The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review. Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected.'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353627/John-3-16-Super-Bowl-advert-rejected-religious-content.html#ixzz1D1cYj4F1Fox does not want to advance particular religious beliefs or practices; that could be a matter of just good business sense for fox. but what else could be expected from the company that makes millions and million from "idol" worship.
Bsix Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 Fox does not want to advance particular religious beliefs or practices; that could be a matter of just good business sense for fox. but what else could be expected from the company that makes millions and million from "idol" worship.You miss my point. I don't criticize Fox for making a business decision in what it runs and won't.Accepting a beer commercial (essentially a drug) says something about the acceptablility of alcohol.Sexualized commercials tells us about social norms.Graphically violent games and movies ads tells us something about how ingrained we are about video violence.I merely observed that religion is becoming a taboo zone for public media advertising. That says something about where America is headed in my opinion.Six
Analytics Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 I merely observed that religion is becoming a taboo zone for public media advertising. That says something about where America is headed in my opinion.I respectfully disagree. Americans have long been averse to religious proselytizing, even as they continue to be a religious people. This policy is a reflection of that time-honored value.
Glenn101 Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 I respectfully disagree. Americans have long been averse to religious proselytizing, even as they continue to be a religious people. This policy is a reflection of that time-honored value.I disagree with you on that. There have been times when religious programming was mainstream television and had good ratings. It was mostly confined to Sunday, though. This message can hardly be construed as proselyting."16 For God so bloved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."It is more like religious intolerance.Glenn
Stargazer Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 A company made a decision delimitating what ads would and would not be appropriate for a particular television show. In this venue, they decided no fart jokes, no guys accidently kissing, no stimulation with vegetables, no advertising gays being welcome at church, and no advertising religion. When looking in aggregate, where does that mean society is headed?As long as the government-issued coins in your pocket continue to endorse faith in God, I don
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Bix:Maybe the Green Bay Packers are just too socialist for them.
frankenstein Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Bix:Maybe the Green Bay Packers are just too socialist for them. did you see the bill mayer article about how the NFL is socialist?
Nathair/|\ Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Was it because they didn't think religion is worthy to associate with the superbowl or because the superbowl isn't worthy to associate with religion?
Bikeemikey Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Perhaps the people made the ad with no intent to pay for airing it during super bowl. Instead they now have the free publicity of claiming it was not accepted.That would be a smart marketing plan for a group wanting to get media attention but not really interested in paying super bowl rates.Or perhaps there were just other much better ads. I mean compare that ad to this one from Volkswagen. I know which one I would chose to have on super bowl prime time.
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 frankenstein:Yep. I don't entirely agree, but reasonably accurate.
nicolasconnault Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Funny, I remember a very similar "scandal" happening for last year's Superbowl, with a supposedly "pro-life" ad getting banned. It caused quite a stir. My feelings are similar today as they were then: who cares? If I had my own way, every ad would get banned, with the exception of the 0.01% that are incredibly smart and funny (like the Volkswagen ad above). Frankly, there are more important issues to quibble over.
bluebell Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Perhaps the people made the ad with no intent to pay for airing it during super bowl. Instead they now have the free publicity of claiming it was not accepted.That would be a smart marketing plan for a group wanting to get media attention but not really interested in paying super bowl rates.Or perhaps there were just other much better ads. I mean compare that ad to this one from Volkswagen. I know which one I would chose to have on super bowl prime time.I love that ad. It's been on my facebook page for days and i think i've watched it about 6 or 7 times now.
Bsix Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 The Washington Post thinks a little like me and sees the state of American culture through Super Bowk commercials. Their description of Super Bowl commercials? "Cultural zeitgeist, scored by Super Bowl commercials" They go so far as to liken Super Bowl commercials "that annual American CAT scan." So, how did our annual cultural check up go?Superbowl Commercials 2011:Acceptable: Domestic violence, groin shots, sexual innuendo, sexualized women, references to women's breasts ("racks"), guzzling alcohol.Unacceptable: A reference to a passage in the Bible.Six
Blossom Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I thought the John 3:16 ad was nice. Maybe I don't get it or something...ehhhhh...newbies, huh? LOL!This might be a little off topic but I think the funniest commercial is that Geico one with Abe and Mary Todd Lincoln. "Does this dress make me look fat?"Blessings,Blossom
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The Washington Post thinks a little like me and sees the state of American culture through Super Bowk commercials. Their description of Super Bowl commercials? "Cultural zeitgeist, scored by Super Bowl commercials" They go so far as to liken Super Bowl commercials "that annual American CAT scan." So, how did our annual cultural check up go?Superbowl Commercials 2011:Acceptable: Domestic violence, groin shots, sexual innuendo, sexualized women, references to women's breasts ("racks"), guzzling alcohol.Unacceptable: A reference to a passage in the Bible.SixHow did the check up go? The halftime show was the equivalent of turn your head to the left and cough.As to the rest, meh,
nicolasconnault Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 How did the check up go? The halftime show was the equivalent of turn your head to the left and cough."My grandfather smoked 10 packs of cigarette a day until his death, and he lived until he was 95! So smoking can't be that bad for you!".
LT123 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The Washington Post thinks a little like me and sees the state of American culture through Super Bowk commercials. Their description of Super Bowl commercials? "Cultural zeitgeist, scored by Super Bowl commercials" They go so far as to liken Super Bowl commercials "that annual American CAT scan." So, how did our annual cultural check up go?Superbowl Commercials 2011:Acceptable: Domestic violence, groin shots, sexual innuendo, sexualized women, references to women's breasts ("racks"), guzzling alcohol.Unacceptable: A reference to a passage in the Bible.SixI'd say the basic theme that has appeared in the last ten years or so of S.B. commercials is: Young males are alcoholic, emasculated morons. Apparently this plays well with a largely male audience, since an extreme amount of money is spent each year to produce that nonsense. What a culture!
Walden Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Fox has apparently rejected a TV ad for the Superbowl because of its indirect religious message. It seems that we have reached the point that the expression of religion is being forced to the back of the bus...or not even being allowed on the bus at all.Adertisers can hawk all sorts of things on the Superbowl -- skimpy-dressed women, beer, horror movies, fattening foods...you name it. But a message that encourgages abstractly encourages viewers to read a benign passage of the Bible is banned.I think this action by Fox is symptomatic of how religion is being treated in our society today.SixSecularists have been winning the culture war since, oh, about the time of the Enlightenment
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I wonder if fox will reject this comment on the Fox news comment board adam09 Mormons are the least of our worries IMO, little fish, we have bigger fish to fry trulymoderate Which is ironic because there is more underage molestation going on among Mormons than any other group. The found of the religion was even sought by the Feds for charges of rap ing an underage girl.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.